Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

The consensus forming is that Clinton won by being a reasonably good debater and successfully baiting Trump, who had a poor showing. Neither Trump nor Clinton had meltdowns, and neither had any real "wowza" moments, but Trump just came off poorly it seems. He sniffled, he interrupted constantly, and he got distracted and unraveled. Trump did well enough that his supporters don't have much to complain about, but he's not winning people over.

And, of course, so far everyone is saying Clinton won, which is much more important than how they actually did, precisely because of people like you who didn't watch it. If everyone told you there was a purple dinosaur on stage how would you know otherwise? Media, betting markets, and pundits are calling it for Clinton.

Overall it seems Clinton won, but we won't know for sure until polls come in.

There's really no shame in admitting that allergies were bugging him, but to Trump, admitting any kind of weakness is an affront on his ego.

I didn't notice any of the sniffing, but yeah, his behavior was just bad, kept treating it like it was the primaries, and it was all too obvious that he didn't practice while Clinton clearly did. Everything we heard, is stuff we have heard before, either in stump speeches or prior debates.

Not sure who he'd have as a Clinton stand-in for when and if he actually practices. Maybe Roger Ailes can straighten him out, who knows.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I knew from the second the debate started turning against Trump that he and his supporters were going to accuse it of being rigged, both in general and due to Holt specifically. It's the standard line for anything that doesn't go perfectly for Trump. The primary votes are rigged, the caucuses are rigged, the primary debates are rigged, the RNC is rigged, the media coverage is rigged, the debates are rigged, and the election is going to be rigged.

I now believe even harder that Trump is going to cancel at least some of the debates.

[BFEL]

So I didn't watch the debates. Mom did of course, and is calling it for Trump. She noted that neither one really put up a good showing and that her decision is because Hillary lied about literally everything.

So my question is that since everyone here believes TRUMP was the one lying about everything, if that is the main sticker for who "won" this debate? As someone who considers literally everything BOTH these candidates say to be in a Schrodinger state of lying/true would you guys say I would call it for Hillary based on behavior alone?

Also note that repeating what politifact or anything else says won't sway me because I consider THOSE to be Shrodinger'd as well >.<

What about the places where you can read the records yourself and see where Trump was lying?

Bought and paid for by Clinton Supporters, according to mom. Along with everything else. Which is why I'm so Shrodinger'd on everything.
Basically I know that sounds completely, batshit insane, but on the other hand I can't help but feel that is EXACTLY the kinda shit our government would pull. I mean you actually have Obama riding Clinton around in Air Force One so its obvious who the current establishment WANTS to win, and everything about our government is so fucking shady that "they rigged all the things" is starting to come off as "yeah and what else is new in Tropico?"

[WealthyRadish]

Bought and paid for by Clinton Supporters, according to mom. Along with everything else. Which is why I'm so Shrodinger'd on everything.
Basically I know that sounds completely, batshit insane, but on the other hand I can't help but feel that is EXACTLY the kinda shit our government would pull. I mean you actually have Obama riding Clinton around in Air Force One so its obvious who the current establishment WANTS to win, and everything about our government is so fucking shady that "they rigged all the things" is starting to come off as "yeah and what else is new in Tropico?"

It's important to separate the hyperbole and conspiracy from people's real concerns. While I might sometimes say things like "Clinton is a barcoded slab of biologically mineralized cash sloughed out our reigning oligarchs' sewage lines", that doesn't necessarily reflect my views accurately; I'm doing it for the good of the nation, because I believe the astonishing spontaneous generation of salt observed in mainiac has immense scientific and industrial potential.

[MrRoboto75]

If it really were rigged, then Trump would be at 2% in the polls. The fact that he's doing so well is a testament to how not-rigged the entire thing really is.

A nice and proper rigging needs verisimilitude.  You don't want the one set up to lose look 100% like he's going to lose.  You want it to appear like a 50-50 split, he had a good chance to win, but its such a shame he didn't.

Not that I'm saying the elections are rigged.

[Rolan7]

I knew from the second the debate started turning against Trump that he and his supporters were going to accuse it of being rigged, both in general and due to Holt specifically. It's the standard line for anything that doesn't go perfectly for Trump. The primary votes are rigged, the caucuses are rigged, the primary debates are rigged, the RNC is rigged, the media coverage is rigged, the debates are rigged, and the election is going to be rigged.

I now believe even harder that Trump is going to cancel at least some of the debates.

Don't forget that apparently the *microphone* was rigged!  He actually said that

[Frumple]

Two days from now and we'll be hearing him say it wasn't actually him, but instead a body double hired to defame his speaking competence.

_{Please oh nonexistent gods, let me be making a joke.}

[mainiac]

the current establishment WANTS to win

Okay, let's start with this part.

Remember how ridiculous it sounded when islamicists said "America wants a Zionist crusade!" or Russian nationalists said "America wants to conquer Russia!"  It sounded ridiculous because you knew that America just doesn't work like that.  There is a huge range of views in America and people dont walk in lockstep.  If America wanted these things people would be talking about them!  Remember how much people talked about the Iraq war?  If crazy shit is going down people are going to talk about it and get into details.  Details like "those aluminum tubes aren't strong enough to refine uranium" or "Valarie Plame was exposed deliberately after she produced intel that yellow cake purchases weren't going down".

When people say "The government" wants something or "China" wants something or "the Media" wants something or even "Iceland" wants something you need to take a step back and realize that they are talking about between tens of thousands and hundreds of millions of people who aren't a freaking hivemind.  "The government" doesn't want something and then magically transmit directives towards millions of people any more then "China" wants an artificial island so every chinese citizen picks up a rock and throws it in the ocean at once.

Yes sometimes certain members of the government want something and we are just using a lazy shorthand.  For instance Obama clearly does not want Donald Trump to be president.  But House Majority Leader Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell do want Donald Trump to be president, just to name a couple.  Keep that in mind.  So Obama wants Clinton to be president but that doesn't mean he has a mind control ray to make federal employees start to rig the election.  All he can do is things like make speeches endorsing Clinton or call Donald Trump a dangerous man.  And meanwhile Ryan and McConnell are giving Trump endorsements and calling Clinton a dangerous woman.

There is a simple mental process to avoid falling into conspiracy theories.  Whenever someone talks about an extremely vague definition and attributes motives towards it you need to say "Which specific people do they mean?  What specific powers do they exert?"  If you cant answer these questions it is at best idle speculation and at worst a conspiracy theory.  For example when people said "Russia" wanted to "invade Ukraine" you can make that more specific.  Putin wanted Russian troops to occupy parts of Crimea.  Putin is capable of giving orders to Russian generals to send troops on covert missions.  This would accomplish the goal of occupying Crimea.

[misko27]

So I didn't watch the debates. Mom did of course, and is calling it for Trump. She noted that neither one really put up a good showing and that her decision is because Hillary lied about literally everything.

So my question is that since everyone here believes TRUMP was the one lying about everything, if that is the main sticker for who "won" this debate? As someone who considers literally everything BOTH these candidates say to be in a Schrodinger state of lying/true would you guys say I would call it for Hillary based on behavior alone?

Also note that repeating what politifact or anything else says won't sway me because I consider THOSE to be Shrodinger'd as well >.<

What about the places where you can read the records yourself and see where Trump was lying?

Bought and paid for by Clinton Supporters, according to mom. Along with everything else. Which is why I'm so Shrodinger'd on everything.
Basically I know that sounds completely, batshit insane, but on the other hand I can't help but feel that is EXACTLY the kinda shit our government would pull. I mean you actually have Obama riding Clinton around in Air Force One so its obvious who the current establishment WANTS to win, and everything about our government is so fucking shady that "they rigged all the things" is starting to come off as "yeah and what else is new in Tropico?"

Dealing with the lies of your mom is really hard when she can just say "well it was the super shady people that did it", and then you buy that because clearly your mother is an expert on these things. Why does Trump sound insane? It must be the super shady people! It's always them! Behold the mighty establishment, it's everywhere! It's putting fluoride in your water to make you forget!

Tell us when you start worrying about the FEMA camps you'll be herded off to.

That may sound mean, but you just came in here asking for information, and you dismissed what we suggested. What, is every piece of info bought by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns? If not, there are sources you can use to go get informed on right now. If so... If you are going to doubt anything everyone says why do you bother coming here anyway? I mean clearly, most of us are either hired by some shady interest group with literally unlimited funds (and where do they get this money? Their infinite pockets, of course), or too deep in the kool aid to notice. If you actually wanted to be informed you could, you know, actually watch the debate instead of A) Not watching the debate, B) Demanding people you say you distrust tell you how to feel (examples: your mother, us, the media, etc), and C) Disregarding what we say anyway because our sources are clearly bought by special interest groups or otherwise biased. I mean wtf man? If you are so darn skeptical of any evidence we show you watch the debates yourself and make your own judgments, don't let the media tell you what to think. But no, instead you've come here because... you trust us but you don't trust us? Who do you trust? Do you trust your own senses? Your mother? Us? The media? A certain part of the media? Foreigners? Your Pastor? Anyone?

Cynicism is not a substitute for critical thinking. I'm trying to be nice here but you've been extremely dismissive and seem to approach this more as a game than anything else. I ask: Do you genuinely think that you take an evenhanded approach? Because I'd argue dismissing both sides of the argument out-of-hand instead of just one is not how you learn about anything.

[mainiac]

I believe you mean to say cynicism is not a substitute for critical thinking.

[misko27]

I believe you mean to say cynicism is not a substitute for critical thinking.

That's not quite what I was saying, but it's better than my original thought.

[mainiac]

Doubt is not a substitute for critical thinking?

[smjjames]

-snip-

You forgot 'do you trust God?' in there.

[Max™]

I'm curious about something now, what exactly is going on behind the scenes over at politico? I find myself going back there because I find so much stuff that I disagree with but can at least respect how things are stated. I'm not just imagining the spread of views covered there--probably due to being such a leftist whackjob that the biggest distinction I can see between the two parties is which one hates socialist ideals most--am I?

I mean, I wouldn't call it a bastion of republican thought, but they do more than just talk about how amazingly awful Trump is, and really having people explaining their reasons for supporting him besides "HE'S GON TAKE IT ALL DOWN" is helpful.


Incidentally, is that china tossing a stone in the ocean thing from a story? I feel like I've heard it before.

-snip-

You forgot 'do you trust God?' in there.

The only deity involved in this election is Coyote.

[mainiac]

Incidentally, is that china tossing a stone in the ocean thing from a story? I feel like I've heard it before.

I think there is some myth about a chinese emperor way back when telling everyone to put carry one rock to make a wall.